Posts Tagged ‘Scottish’

UNTIL now, there’s been a Foster’s shaped hole in my blog. Last summer, I enduredmost of the big–namelagers. And, to the chagrin of dozens of angry commenters, I slammed them all. Foster’s escaped until now, because it took until now to find it in bottled form. Not easy, when most shops sell cans.

Some of you get all huffy when I turn my attention to a lager. So, allow me explain something. If I think your favourite big-name lager is awful, then it probably is. That’s my opinion. It doesn’t mean I despise all lagers. Perła Chmielowa Premium Pils and Leżajsk Beer were lagers, and they were both excellent. What it means is that you could do so much better when you’re next in the off-license or supermarket.

So, what will Foster’s be like? With hopes this low, all it needs to be is adequate to exceed expectations. If you’ve never seen what Foster’s looks like in a bottle instead of a can, here it is.

Yes, it has a neck label. The message is simple. There’s a big Foster’s “F” logo. And the slogan “The Amber Nectar”. When you have branding this good, you don’t need much else.

It’s a similar story with the front label.

It conveys less information than any other bottle of beer I’ve seen. Even foreign language beers convey more than this. You’ll learn more from a copy of The Star than you will here. But then, do they need to say anything? With a name this well known, they could have stuck on a photocopied address label with the “F” logo, and we’d all immediately recognised what it was.

Fortunately, the back label makes of for the lack of information elsewhere. And they appear to have squished it into a label nearly the size of a Post-It® note.

On it, we learn that Foster’s is “Australia’s famous award winning quality lager”. Award winning? From whom? When? Was it for their marketing by any chance? Whatever the case, we learn that it’s “enjoyed in over 150 countries”.

They describe as “clean, crisp and refreshing”. No mention of flavour. But then this is a lager. And all those qualities are what a good lager should have. In my opinion. And that’s what I hope Fosters’s will have. To give it the best chance possible, I’ll even try to drink it “Super Chilled at 3 C” like they recommend. Honestly, I’m completely open minded about Foster’s. I sincerely want to enjoy a good lager right now.

Sadly, Foster’s itself isn’t quite so sincere. That’s because it was brewed not in Australia, but here. By Scottish & Newcastle in Edinburgh. That makes it as Australian as bagpipes.

In a tiny space near the barcode are all the vital statistics. This is a small 275ml bottle. The alcoholic volume is a moderate 4%. Both of these facts together give this bottle 1.1 UK units of alcohol. That must be the smallest number of UK units of alcohol of any bottle I’ve ever tried for this blog. Astonishing. There’s a small section advising men not to exceed 4 daily units, and women, 3. But with bottles like this, you’re quite, quite safe.

So, what is the bottle of Foster’s actually like? What does it taste like? And should you buy a bottle? Time to crack it open and find out…

At 275ml, it fits your half-pint glass perfectly. And, through the miracle of surface tension, the small layer of foam doesn’t overflow either. Give it a couple of minutes though, and that layer of head turns into a forlorn patch of bubbles.

The colour isn’t as pale as some cheap lagers. But then it’s never going to be Newcastle Brown, is it. All in all, a good amber hue. Just like they said it would be.

What does it smell like? It smells of pilsner style lager. It has much the same blend of malted barley in it’s odour as every other pilsner lager. Compared to some, it doesn’t smell strong. Quite light and inoffensive.

What does it taste like? A couple of gulps into this “Super Chilled” (40 minutes in my freezer ice box) Foster’s reveal a taste that’s identical to the smell. It tastes like most pilsner style lagers. That is to say, that is tastes of a blend of malted barley. And, like the smell, you can barely taste it. That makes it completely inoffensive.

A couple more gulps in, and I’m still struggling to find any tastes and flavour. If you concentrate really hard, you can just about make out a trace of malted barley. Although I could be imagining it.

Foster’s, when it’s very cold, does have some good points. For a start, it is clean, crisp and refreshing. Exactly what it advertised on the label. And those things are exactly what a lager should be. I can go better than that. This very cold bottle of Foster’s is pretty smooth. It’s not gassy. And, best of all, it doesn’t have that bittersweet “bite” that most lagers use to kick you in the throat. Yes, some of you love that “bite”, but I don’t. Which is why I think that Foster’s is easy to drink.

There are, however, one or two drawbacks. Not suffering from lager “bite”. The drinkability. They’ve come at a cost. This is one of the wateriest lagers I’ve had ina long time. It’s also one of the most tasteless. Even other lagers have more malted barley flavour than this. Only Tesco Value Lager can match this for lack of taste. And that had only 2% alcoholic volume.

How can I sum up Foster’s? I’d hate to have tried it warm. I’m guessing that having it “Super Chilled” helped it to be clean, crisp and refreshing. Sure, it has those qualities. But nothing more. This is one of the weakest, blandest lagers on the market. Totally drinkable and inoffensive; because you’re effectively drinking water.

You can buy better lager, so buy better lager. You can buy better beer than lager, so do that too. Buy Foster’s either to not offend anyone or out of habit. There is no compelling reason to drink this pretend Australian water.

Rating: 1.8

Have you tried Foster’s? Do you want to leave an angry comment? Do you agree? Whatever the case, do please leave your opinions, corrections, thoughts, requests, recommendations and places to buy here in the comments.

WITH few bottled beers on the shelves that I haven’t tried, the options are running thin. Something would have to give. And that something is quality. So, even though I swore I would never bother with it when I rounded off my look at Peroni Nastro Azzurro, here is San Miguel.

Thanks to all the advertising from this international mega-brand, the bottle looks as familiar as Fanta. And first impressions are good. It’s all very tasteful looking.

The neck label sums up much of what you need to know.

The famous “San Miguel” name and logo uses a tasteful red, green and gold colour scheme. They also describe this beer as “International Premium Lager”. Rather vague and unimaginative don’t you think? I suggest “Bland Generic Lager”.

The main front label doesn’t add much more.

In fact, it’s virtually a bigger version of the neck label. The main exception to that is the alcoholic volume which is 5%. Which isn’t exceptional at all. There’s also a small red crest in the bottom-right corner. Featuring as it does three castle turrets and an anchor, I’d say that this bottle is subtly hinting at Spain’s past naval might. A fact made laughable when we look at the back label to discover where this “International Premium Lager” was made.

Sure, the paragraph on the back label may name Spanish cities such as Seville and Barcelona. And that it’s “uniquely refreshing taste” has made it Spain’s most loved export. But the fact remains that this was “Brewed in the UK” by Scottish & Newcastle in Edinburgh. And that makes this lager as Spanish as Rab C. Nesbitt.

Elsewhere on the back label, and the Spanish equivalent to “Cheers”; “Salud!” is a good addition. Down in the small print, this 330 millilitre bottle of 5% lager weighs in at 1.7 UK units of alcohol. It, predictably, contains barley and wheat. And the web address hints at the true Spanish origins of this famous lager, because it is at www.sanmiguel.es. And, sure enough, it takes you to a Spanish language website. Why they have that address and not the English language, UK specific www.sanmiguel.co.uk, I don’t know.

With nothing else worth reading, it’s time to open this “International Premium Lager”. Can’t say I’m looking forward to it. But no one said the hobby of reviewing bottled beers would be easy.

In the glass, everything looks very ordinary. It’s a similar pale yellow colour to most other lagers. It has a head. Albeit a patchy one. And it has a weak, bland smell of malted barley.

But, will this be one of those drinks that looks terrible, and then surprises us all? Lets take a couple of gulps to find out. No. No it isn’t. It has exactly the rough, cheap lagery taste I was afraid it would have.

It tastes of the same blend of malted barley and hops that you’ll find in almost any other lager in the world. The difference is the after taste. There’s no smoothing of the lingering bitter after taste here. No rice softening the blow. Instead, you’ll find a rough, lingering bitter after taste.

Digging deep, there is a brief list of points on the plus side. I left this bottle in the freezer for a good few minutes, and I suspect that it has made it that much more drinkable that it would otherwise have been. The label describes it as having a “uniquely refreshing taste”. And served cool enough to dull the flavour, it is fairly refreshing. And that, in turn, makes it begin to be drinkable.

The list of points on the negative side is, as you’d have guessed, substantially bigger. Foremost among them is that taste. Some people who like their strongly flavoured lagers will like it. I don’t. In fact, I hate it. That lingering bitter after taste is about the worst I’ve ever tasted. Worse even than some of the Polish lagers.

And it doesn’t stop there. Putting aside that atrocious after taste for a moment, everything else about the flavour is bland. In fact, there is almost no real flavour. Just a colossally bad after taste. The same goes for the smell and the look.

To sum up, San Miguel is unexceptional in every way apart from the after taste which is exceptionally bad. If you like your lager to be strong tasting, you might like it. Otherwise, choose something different. Even a Polish lager. Because it will be more drinkable than this.

You might be thinking at this point that my prejudices clouded my judgement with this one. That I went in expecting it to be bad, so it was bad. But that’s not the case. You see, this was brewed by Scottish & Newcastle. And I thought other S&N licenses Kronenbourg 1664 and Foster’s Ice were good for what they were. Despite my open mind, I couldn’t find anything to love, or even like about San Miguel.

Rating: 0.3

Have you tried San Miguel? What did you think of it?
Leave your corrections, opinions, thoughts and recommendations here please.

Like this:

AFTER the miserable Bud Ice a few days ago, I’ve foolishly decided to give the ‘Ice‘ themed bottled lager another try. Say hello to this little bottle of Foster’s Ice.

First impressions are that it looks a lot like Bud Ice. The glass is transparent. And the logos and labels are slanted and trendy. But this is no Anheuser-Busch mega-brand. No. This mega-brand comes from an entirely different mega-brewer.

As a product, it’s hard to fault the packaging. The top has the Foster’s logo of an ice-skating kangaroo. And that’s a logo you don’t see very prominently in their television commercials these days.

The neck label has the familiar Foster’s “F” logo with the gold, red and blue colour scheme that goes with it. The words “Premium Quality Beer” raise a smile. Will that prove to be ironic? Or will it surprise me?

What I like about the little neck label though, is that they’ve managed to stick it onto the bottle at the same slanted angle as the main front label. And that’s good packaging.

It’s hard to fault this label. Sure, it dispenses with the anything remotely traditional. In fact, it makes the whole thing look more like an alcopop. But since it’s probably aiming at the alcopop drinker, that’s forgivable.

Under the gigantic logos and brand name are the facts you need to know. Carefully placed in a little silver bar along the bottom is the description “For A Clean Crisp Taste”. This is a lager then, clearly aiming for the basics. Next to that, in red no less, is the alcoholic volume. Which at 5% isn’t notable in any way.

Because the back label is the size of a postage stamp, they’ve carefully put some of the small-print on the sides of the front label. On one side, we’re informed that this is a 33 centilitre bottle. That it’s a “Premium Quality Ice Brewed Beer” that contains barley and wheat.

Over on the other side are the UK units of alcohol. You probably won’t be interested to know, that this little bottle contains all of 1.7 units. But if you are, they also print the recommended daily units for men and women. Which are four and three respectively in case you are the curious type.

Around on the back of the bottle, and the barcode dominates the Post-It Note sized label.

Fortunately, they don’t try to cram much else on there too. What there is, is a quick description about what this drink is. And the address of where it was made. The description describes it as “Ice Brewed and Superchilled”. And that this is to “Produce a Smooth Refreshing Lager” that has a “Uniquely Clean, Crisp Taste”. All good qualities. And with expectations as low as mine, maybe it won’t disappoint.

Sadly, the address of the place where this was made does. That’s because Foster’s comes from UK brewing giant Scottish & Newcastle in Edinburgh. That makes this bottle of Foster’s Ice as Australian as deep-fried Mars bars.

Still, it’s now time to crack open this bottle. And to sample the lager within. In a London hotter than the Earth’s core, I truly hope this one is as refreshing at it promises.

Once in the glass, you won’t be surprised by the colour. Which is pale yellow. But you knew that already from the transparent glass bottle. What I was pleased to see was a proper head. A little patchy, but better than expected.

It has a richer smell than expected, too. You don’t need to sniff hard to get a good whiff of malted barley. I like it.

A couple of gulps in, and I must admit, it is no where near as bad as I had been expecting. It has a solid, lagery taste of malted barley with a lightly lingering, but not unpleasant bitterness. Not very strongly flavoured and not so weak as to be un-noticeable.

I didn’t expect to have any positives to report, yet, here they are. The taste and flavour is as inoffensive as you can get for a lager. And that makes it very easy to drink. If you’ve got a chilled bottle, it should be as “refreshing” and “clean” as promised. It’s also smooth and none too gassy.

Being a lager, there is no chance that it can escape fault. For starters, it tastes of lager. Compared to ale or beer in any other form, this means it tastes cheap and it boring. That’s a fact that is true however good the lager in question is. Then there’s the taste itself. That lingering bitterness will stop Foster’s Ice from being so refreshing after a bottle or two.

In summation, Foster’s Ice is a good example of the “ice brewed” lager phenomenon. Think of it like the whole “white cider” boom. Both this and Bud Ice are lagers stripped of real flavours, apparently designed to be as easy to drink as possible. If you have to make a choice, then choose Foster’s Ice over Bud Ice. Alternatively, choose a real beer instead.

Rating: 2.6

Have you tried Foster’s Ice? What did you think of it?
Leave your corrections, opinions, thoughts and recommendations with the world in the little box below.

Like this:

GEARS of the brewing industry grinded yesterday, when Belgian brewing giant InBev (home to countless European beer brands) offered to buy American brewing giant Anheuser-Busch (home to Budweiser) for $46.3 billion US Dollars. This, Forbes postulated, was bad news for that other international brewing giant, SABMiller, because no one wanted to buy it. This raised an important question for me. Namely, how good are their respective beers?

InBev have so far provided the highs of Hoegaarden, intriguing Gold Label Barley Wine and lows of that alcoholics choice, Tennent’s Super Strong Lager. And that’s just a microscopic portion of the brands they own. The only brew from the SABMiller stables that I’ve tried so far was the very average Castle Lager from Africa. I’ve not even tried anything bearing the Anheuser-Busch name in the small-print. So the time was right to fill in some gaps.

Whilst visiting my local purveyor of alcohol, I was disappointed to note that Budweiser is a lager. And therefore no better than average from the word go. Furthermore, the Czech Budweiser, Budwar is also a lager. If there is any demand out there for me to give them a try, I will, but most lagers are a waste of time.

I needed to find a beer. And, in the nick of time, one turned up. Here is a can of Miller Beer. An American beer, and part of the SABMiller family.

First impressions are that is looks cool. The silver background is fetching, and makes everything printed on it readable. The “Miller” logo goes for the über-American look. There’s a large bald-headed eagle clutching a bunch of barley and hops. There are stars around the circular border. And the typeface looks as though it belongs on the jerseys of a baseball team. It does have a date on it though. 1855 isn’t at all bad in terms of heritage.

Under the big logo, the origins are proudly displayed for all to see. “Miller Brewing Company Milwaukee U.S.A.” Maybe my American readers can leave a comment saying if being from Milwaukee is something to be proud of. Or not.

At the bottom of the ‘front’ of the can is a big blue band. And in it, we can clearly see that this beer has an alcoholic volume of 4.2%. Not very strong. Barely moderately strong. But above weak. And there’s the ubiquitous advice to “serve chilled”. Don’t worry, I’ll be very relaxed when serving.

The small print is all tucked into a single column. And it begins with some bad news. This can wasn’t imported from Milwaukee. Instead, it was brewed “under license” by Scottish & Newcastle in Edinburgh. There’s a UK customer careline. A S&N email address at miller@scottish-newcastle.co.uk. And their Edinburgh postal address. It’s not the S&N are bad. It’s that I’d love to have more American beers over here that aren’t simply pretending to be so.

The can size is the homogenous 500 millilitres. Which, at 4.2% volume has 2.1 of your UK units of alcohol. Besides a summary of recommended maximums and the news that this contains barley and wheat is something unexpected. If not often that you find a full breakdown of nutritional information. But this has it. Energy, protein, carbohydrate and fat content are all listed. So if you’re on a calorie controlled diet, or looking for a product to write about for your biology class, this one is for you.

With nothing else to write about, it’s time to answer that all-important questions. Is Miller Beer any good?

Be careful with the pouring. It has a tendency to froth up. My pint glass was able to cope, but you wouldn’t want a can that had dropped several times. After a couple of minutes the head died down to a thin and patchy layer, so it was time to get a closer look.

The colour is a decent shade of amber. Not to cheap looking and not artificially bright. There’s not much of a smell though. An indistinctive smell of beer ingredients is there. You just need to sniff extra hard.

A few gulps down, and first impressions are okay. The taste is very mildly bitter and sour, with hint of barley, wheat and hops. But not much.

About half-way through now, and there are a few things I like about Miller Beer. It’s very light. It’s very easy to drink as there’s little for the taste-buds to dislike. And it’s refreshing.

But all of those things can’t cover up some gaping holes. For starters, where is the flavour? It is almost tasteless. I’ve had bottled water with more flavour. Then, the taste and flavour it has, is cheap and nasty. Good beers and ales make you feel as though you’re drinking a carefully chosen blend of natural ingredients. This doesn’t. It could easily have something to do with coming out of a can instead of a bottle or keg at the pub. But it’s hard to escape the economy quality and artificial taste it leaves in your mouth.

To sum up, Miller Beer is tragically disappointing. I really wanted to like this one. Or to at least find it to be a quality if indistinctive beer. But it roundly fails to reach even average status. This is bland and low-quality. I’d rather have a lager.

Rating: 1.7

Have you tried Miller Beer?
What reputation does it have in the States? What did you think of it?
Leave your opinions, corrections, thoughts, suggestions and recommendations here please.

YET another Scottish ale. Yes, I know, you’re probably getting tired of every other review on my blog being of a Scottish beer. I’ll look at some bottles that aren’t from Scotland soon enough, but let’s see if this bottle can’t end on a high note. Bought from Tesco, this is a Traditional Scottish Ales Ltd bottle of Lomond Gold Organic Blonde Beer.

I’ll be honest with you. I thought that the brewery was called ‘Lomond’ and that ‘Traditional Scottish Ales’ was just a description. But that would be too easy. Instead it turns out that the brewer is called Traditional Scottish Ales Ltd, and that this bottle is called Lomond Gold. Is it only me who was flummoxed by this?

The front label has a big silhouette of what is presumably a Scottish loch. Loch Lomond perhaps? I happen to think the whole label looks a big like those from the Orkney Brewery. Have a look at their Northern Light and Dark Island to see what I mean.

The style of the text is something I like. The deliberately warn down typeface that looks as if it has come straight from the dark ages is a very effective. It gives the impression that ancient Scottish clans might have stopped to drink blonde ale, in-between fighting each other and the Vikings.

This label also has the highest billing yet for ‘Organic’. This is definitely the new trend in beers and ales. Especially as a selling point by the smaller breweries. It’s probably something that we’ll see a lot more of in the years to come. Also there, are the 500 millilitre quantity and the unremarkable 5% ABV.

Over on the other side of the bottle, it’s clear that they have chosen to keep things simple. No long paragraphs describing the history of the brewer or origins of this brew. Just a white background, black text and some gold here and there.

Very helpfully, they start the back label with ‘Tasting Notes’. These are always good fun, to see how near or far the drink actually is to them. The concise little sentence they give us is “Clean sharp and fresh tasting with a hint of citrus and a very satisfying aftertaste”. Sounds yummy.

Also warranting a emboldened line on the back label is the statement “Triple filtered for added purity”. Now that’s not something I’ve read on any other bottle. What are the benefits to filtering so many times? I’m admittedly a beer novice, so if you know, leave a comment at the end of this post.

Under the ‘Ingredients’ heading, the organic credentials are boosted further. Pure Scottish water. Organically grown malted barley and organically grown hops and yeast are all mentioned. The Organic Certification logo is on there. And that this bottle contains 2.5 of your UK units of alcohol. In case that is of any importance to you whatsoever.

Down below the barcode is the contact information. Which is interesting because it tells us that Traditional Scottish Ales Ltd are from Stirling. There’s a telephone helpline. And a web address, which at the time of writing, doesn’t work. Come on chaps. Get your website working before printing the address on the bottle. You’re bottles are being sold at Tesco now. If you care to try it yourself, you might or might not find it at www.traditionalscottishales.com. Changing it to a .co.uk gets things moving. So, you’ll find their website at www.traditionalscottishales.co.uk instead.

After being poured, the ale itself is non-descript. There’s hardly any head to speak of And the colour is a subdued shade of gold. The smell is quite good though. Split roughly 70-30 of malted barley and hops. A good smell for an ale, if you ask me.

A couple of gulps in, and I’m not sure what to make of the taste. There’s nothing that jumps out at you. It’s certainly not bad. But it is hard to figure out. This is going to take a few more gulps…

There’s a little bitterness in there. But not very much. If, like me, you don’t care for bitter, you won’t be too put off here. It’s quite clean and fresh in character. This isn’t a particularly big, heavy and daunting drink. Not too gassy either.

The aftertaste is hoppy and slightly sour. But not in a bad way. And yes, there are those hints citrus that were promised on the label. In fact, all the things promised on the label are present. Only not in the ways that I was expecting. The proportions and character of everything is different to what I was expecting. And arguably different to what the label led me to expect.

But is Lomond Gold any good? I’m sure that is it. It simply isn’t too my pernickety tastes. I’m finding it too ‘sharp’ in its bitterness. But then, that was what the label advertised. I’m sure that there will be lots of you out there, with your flat caps, pipes and walking sticks who adore the bitter and malty flavours of the ale world. The organic links will also be of great interest to the pro-museli brigade of Islington. It just isn’t for me.

This leaves me in a quandary for how to sum up Lomond Gold. Traditional Scottish Ales are a relatively new outfit. And I want to encourage new breweries. Lomond Gold will appeal to some people. But not me. I found it boring and lacking the character of the many other ales and beers out there. It does well with the clean and fresh taste and citrus hints. And that is to be applauded. But with so many awesome Scottish ales out there, this needs to try that bit harder to stand out.

Rating: 3.6

Have you tried Lomond Gold? Or any others from Traditional Scottish Ales? If so, leave your thought below.
Or any other ideas, suggestions or insults for that matter.

TESCO keep surprising, with yet more Scottish ales surfacing. And, best of all. One of them is a Broughton. If you haven’t read them already, then make your way over to my reviews of three other Broughton, and you’ll see why I’m so excited. Old Jock Ale, Black Douglas and Champion Double Ale are some of the most consistently outstanding that I’ve reviewed. Each one scoring in the 4-4.5 range. And all from the Scottish Borders Broughton Ales. This one is called Border Gold and I can hardly wait to crack open the bottle and get to the fun part.

Much the same formula for the bottle and label has been stuck to here as with the three others, so I won’t go into too much detail here. Especially as you really must read my reviews of the other Broughton bottles. The same style of front label features a roundel, sided by illustrations of hops and the Scottish Saltaire. Inside the roundel appears to be a portrait of a female monarch. Mary Queen of Scots perhaps? As usual, it will probably be explained on the story on the other side of the bottle.

Also on the front is something that should catch your eye. An A.B.V of 6.0%. That should make that that this drink is at least strong enough. And it’s something I like about Scottish beers and ales. No compromise on the alcohol front.

Turning the bottle around and the story is where you’d expect it to be.

The story behind the front illustration is as tenuous as it was for their other bottles. This one revolves around legend that gold from the streams of the Yarrow Valley, somewhere near the Broughton brewery, was used to make a wedding ring. And that that wedding ring was for Mary Stuart, the Queen of Scots. A ha! My historical hunch was right. It is still an undeniably round-about way of printing her portrait on the label of a gold ale.

The second paragraph goes into some detail about the drink itself. According to the label, we can expect a golden colour. A clean and full malt flavour. And a crisp, hop after taste. As usual, it’ll be interesting to see how close that gets to reality.

Over on the other side are the small-print details and barcode. Sadly, it confirms that we’re back to a 500 millilitre bottle. No full pint of drink here unlike some beers. In a small box on this side, it also describes itself as “Organic Ale”. That’s something I’m starting to see on an increasing number of bottles from small breweries. Is that actually appealing to anyone out there?

The 6.0% volume gives this bottle 3 of your UK alcohol units. And it contains water, malted barley, hops and yeast. That’s it from the outside. Finally, time to try Border Gold.

As you can see, I head a little trouble with the head. Maybe I poured it too quickly. Or the bottle had been shaken. Or it was intended to froth up like that. But a few short minutes after this photo was taken it died down, so it wasn’t a problem.

The colour is dark gold. Roughly what was promised. The smell is as complex as I had hoped for. In there are hints of the malt, the barley and the hops. It’s a good mix. And not too overpowering either.

The taste is sharper than I was hoping for. Much more bitter than I was expecting. And it’s not as malty as promised on the label. What does appear as advertised is the ‘hop flower’ aftertaste. Which I found to be rather too sour for my taste.

I’m not sure what to make of Border Gold. I don’t much care for the taste. But those who like bitter probably would do. The quality is again in evidence. Even though I don’t much like the taste, it still manages to be very drinkable. This poses a challenge for the rating.

I’m going to rate this lower than any other Broughton because I couldn’t get over the taste. But it’s still a high-quality, easy to drink ale. This is one for fans of bitter flavours, I think.

Rating: 3.7

Have you tried Border Gold? What did you think?
Comments, ideas, suggestions and insults below please.

Like this:

WHAT do we have here? It turns out that Tesco was holding back on one of their batch of Scottish ales. Because here, we have another Broughton beer from the Borders. And this one promises to be something special.

If you haven’t read my reviews of BroughtonOld Jock or Black Douglas, then you should do it now. They were both good, and the bottles and labels looked the same at this one. That saves me time on the description here so we can get to the contents faster.

The front label sticks to the ultra-Scottish theme of before. The roundel is surrounded by illustrations of hops and the Saltaire. Unlike Old Jock or Black Douglas however, the centre illustration isn’t as stereotypically Scottish. The medieval knights could be from anywhere. I expect my Scots to be red-haired and wearing tartan.

But look closely enough and you’ll see what makes this one different to the others. Tucked away at the bottom of the front label, it says “Tesco Drinks Awards Best Beer”. That and the 5.5% ABV give the impression that this should be a cut above the rest.

Presumably, the fact that there are two knights, and that this brew is called Double Ale have a connection. Let’s see what the rest of the label says…

Around left-hand-side of the big label that is wrapped around the bottle, we get the explanation. And it’s a long-one, so allow me to attempt a summary. The two knights on the front label are supposed to be Sir Alexander Ramsey of Dalhousie and Sir William Douglas, Knight of Liddesdale. They were very good at what they did, and were popular with King David of Scotland in the 14th Century.

This legend, Boughton have twisted to explain this, their blend of two beers. Hence the name Champion Double Ale. What they have done is blend a traditional strong Scottish ale with a Porter style ale. Apparently, they brew and ferment them separately, before blending and maturing the result.

They go on the promise drinkability with complex tastes and aromas. I’ll take a guess that the result will be malty, hoppy and unusual. Place your bets now on how close that guess is, because it’s time to open the bottle. Especially as there’s nothing much to note on the other side of the label. Apart from the 2.5 units of alcohol. If that’s something you like to notice.

Once in the glass, the head is just where you want it to be. And the colour is about what you’d expect. Not that I really knew what to expect.

The smell is what you’d expect. Mostly of malt and hops. It’s exactly how you’d expect a big old ale to smell. Although maybe not as remarkable as I’d been hoping.

As you’d expect from a split-personality blended ale, the flavour is complex. It’s a big malty. It’s a bit malty. It has a bitterness and sourness to the taste and aftertaste. It has all these things. Yet none dominate the others. And that’s unusual. Because most that I’ve tried have one that towers over the others.

It might not sound it, but Champion Double Ale tastes quite good. Nothing in there is too strong to offend all but the most timid palates. It’s not too gassy. And there’s enough body to fill out its 500 millilitre bottle nicely. Add to that, the easy to drink quality that Broughton do so well, and we’ve got a beer here that is undoubtedly above average. But is it deserving of Champion, Best Beer status?

There is a lot to like about Champion Double Ale. But would I give it a Best Beer award? I’m not sure. There are a lot of specialBritishbeersoutthere. I’m going to say that Champion Double Ale is very very good, but the sour aftertaste puts me off. So I’m going to say that this is excellent, but some people out there will want to look for something easier to drink. I’d give this a very close Runner Up award. But don’t be disappointed Broughton, this is an outstanding ale.

Rating: 4.4

Have you tried Champion Double Ale?
Or any other Broughton ales?
Got any recommendations? Or ideas of your own for what I should talk about next?
Comments in the usual place, people…

For the front label and bottle shape, Harviestoun have stuck to the same formula for Schiehallion as they did with Bitter & Twisted. There’s a clear and well designed roundel. An illustration, this time of mountains and clouds. An ABV of 4.8% which makes this a premium lager. Those tantalising words “Craft brewed in Alva, Scotland” and three clear bullet points about what to expect. That is to say; “Crisp”, “Dry” and “Airy”.

The rear label is also an example of restraint and class. And one that answers all the questions you have after seeing the front. The band across the middle gives us the pronunciation for “Schiehallion”. A name I thought was German. But is in fact pronounced “She-hal-i-on”. If you try saying it with a Scottish accent, it begins to make sense. And yet more sense when you read the description above it. It turns out that Scheihallion is the Scottish mountain of the front label illustration. And the inspiration for this apparently award-winning beer. What award it won, we’re not told.

The information doesn’t stop there however. This one mentions a type of hops that I’ve never seen mentioned on any other bottle. Has anyone ever heard of “Herbsbrücker Lager hops” before? How are they different? Answers in the comments please.

How Harviestoun describe Schiehallion is “crisp, dry and airy” and with a “fresh, grapefruit taste”. Sounds delicious. Let’s see if it actually is.

Other off bits of information on the label include the suggestion that Schiehallion is best straight from the fridge. And that this 500 millilitre bottle has 2.4 of your UK alcohol units. If you’re drinking this in another country, don’t worry about ignoring the “units” symbol. We ignore them too.

Once in a glass, Schiehallion looks and smells lagery. It’s gold in colour and with not much head.

And it smells typically lagery as well. There’s no mistaking that waft of hops that you only get with lager. The smell that I think, isn’t as good as with ale.

Now the most important part. The taste. And the question of whether it matches the description on the label. Let’s test…

A couple of gulps down, and it’s tasting as much like lager as it looks and smells. That is to say, it’s utterly lagery. Maybe I’ve been spoilt by the number of quality ales I’ve been drinking lately, but all lagers are starting to seem as full-flavoured as an Alka-Seltzer. Or perhaps I’m being harsh on it. It’s not pretending to be anything other than a quality lager.

After you recover from the bitterness that accompanies all lagers, you can begin to appreciate it a little more. The quality does shine through in the drinkability. It’s not too gassy and easy to drink. And I can’t argue with the description of crisp, dry and airy. As for the promised citrus or grapefruit taste, I found it hard to identify. What dominated for me was watery hoppy bitterness. But that’s lager for you. If you know your lagers, you’ll probably be able to pick out exactly what the flavours are.

For me, Schiehallion was nice, refreshing lager. Was it special? I’m not sure if it truly did anything new. But it was a quality lager. And if you like lagers, you’ll probably like this one. If, like me, you’ve been enjoying beers and ales with fuller bodies than Vanessa Feltz, you’ll prefer something that mentions styrian goldings and fuggles on the label.

For these reasons, I’ve got to rate Schiehallion low. But it gains some marks for it’s obvious class among lagers. And if you like your lager, you can add a point or two yourself.

Rating: 3.25

Agree or disagree with my rating?
Have you tried Schiehallion or any other Harviestoun brew?
Any recommendations of your own?
Or ideas of what I should review next?

Like this:

AFTER taking a day off to recover from several arduous days of beer reviewing, I’m back. And this time, I’m looking at a bottle of Belhaven 80 Shilling Classic choice. Again, this is from the Scottish ale batch being sold by my local Bethnal Green branch of Tesco.

This front label keeps things relatively simple. Inside the roundel, there’s a picture of a lion. One that looks like a take on the lion from the Royal Standard of Scotland.

There’s a discreet “estd.” of “1719” which is very early indeed. Also a hint that this Belhaven is part of a range that they call “Classic Beer”.

On the other side of he bottle, there’s a surprisingly small back label. Surprising when you compare it to the encyclopaedia’s on the back of some of the bottles I’ve looked at recently.

The rear label is headed with “Belhaven 80/- Export Ale”. This baffled me at first, until I realised that “/-” means shilling in old money. Nice quirky touch. This they followed with the reason why. According to the label, shillings were used to categorise beer strength in nineteenth-century Scotland. This beer just happens to be 80, rather than 27 or 7 guineas. Interesting history trivia for a beer label.

Also on there is a little description of what to expect from it. And it’s good news if you’re a fan of fruity beers. This one was one described as “gooseberry pie and cream”. “Kiwi”, “apple”. “walnuts” and “creamy toffee” are mentioned along with more typical “grain” and “hops”. And when they say “take time to savour the flavour”, you know that they think this will be good. We’ll be the judge of that…

On the more factual half of the rear label, we get all the basics. One of which is an unusually low 3.9% volume. Compared to the 5% and above of most other ales I’ve tried recently, this is low. What it means is that this 500 millilitre bottle has just 1.95 units of your alcohol.

With that out of the way, it’s time to see what this ale from The Belhaven Brewery Co. from Dunbar, Scotland, can do. I’m looking forward to this.

Once in a glass, it looks a little darker than I was expecting. Although it’s more transparent than some of the darker and stronger ales I’ve recently reviewed. It also comes topped with a thick and consistent head of foam.

Its smell I would rate as ale-like. Not surprising as that’s exactly what it is. Hops and grain are what comes across in the smell. And as that’s what ale should smell like, in my humble opinion, that gets 80 shilling off to a good start.

Trying to drink it will give you a milk-like moustache. So ready yourself for that. Or don’t care about it. It’s your choice.

As I had almost no idea what to expect from the taste, I was, unsurprisingly, surprised. It wasn’t bitter. It wasn’t fruity. Nor flowery. The apple and kiwi, if they truly are in there, weren’t strong enough for me to notice. As for the promised walnuts and toffee, they don’t jump out at you either. What then, does 80 shilling taste of?

If pushed, I’d say hops and malted barley. Yet neither are much in evidence either. Maybe I’ve been spoiled by the ultra-flavourful ales that I’ve been reviewing recently. Or maybe 80 shilling simply isn’t a strong beer. The character reminded me most of lagers where you notice the watery-ness. And that might be down to the low 3.9% alcohol volume.

What is 80 shilling all about? It’s an ale that’s light and easy to drink. Unfortunately, it comes at the cost of true flavour, body and character that makes ales so much fun. If you want something that looks, smells and tastes somewhat like an ale, you’ll like Bellhaven 80 shilling. I however, am looking for something that doesn’t comprise so much. That said, I like drinks that achieve something different. By being light, low-alcohol and drinkable, 80 shilling does just that.

Rating: 3.25

Have you tried this or any other Belhaven beers? What did you think?
Have you got any tips for beers to try?
Or want me to review anything else?
Comments below please…

Like this:

AFTER yesterday’s satisfying Scottish strong ale, I’m now on to another Scottish ale from my local Tesco. This one is called Three Sisters and it’s the first beer that I’ve tried from the Atlas Brewery. Or is it?

Going by the front label, Three Sisters certainly stands out. The typeface and pink-ness make sure that the Three Sisters aren’t shrinking violets. The 4.2% volume is clearly visible, as are some statements that remind me of Orkney’s labels. Specifically the “Brewed in small batches” reference. Like I’ve said before, that’s the sort of thing you like to read about your ale. Reference to huge vats and massive volume are to be avoided.

In the place of the ‘authenticity stamp’ favoured by Orkney and some other Scottish brewers, we have something more straight to the point. We learn that it will be “dark ruby” in colour. And that it will have “roast malt”, “fruity” and “hop” flavours.

The rear label is big and crams a lot of information on. Prominently placed is the symbol telling us that this 500 millilitre bottle contains 2.1 units. If that’s something you waste your time counting.

The right-hand side of the rear label mentions a couple of other Atlas beers. The left-hand side gives us the story. That the Three Sisters are in fact three peaks of Glen Coe. Somewhere that is presumably not far from their Kinlochleven address. The last thing to note on the rear label is that they use Styrian Golding hops. These are for fruitiness and a crisp aftertaste. Let’s see whether it is, as we open the bottle…

Once in the glass, it did look every so slightly red. Although I was expecting a little redder. The head was good an frothy, but it died down a lot moments after I had taken this photograph.

If, unlike me, you take a lot of time to smell your beer, you’ll probably enjoy the complex mixture of malt, hoppiness and fruits all muddled together. Fans of Scottish ales and those on the darker end of the ale spectrum will probably like this smell. For me though, it’s a little strong.

The taste and flavour are satisfyingly full and strong. The first tastes that hit me were the malt and the bitter. But it manages the avoid most of the bitter and sour aftertaste that accompanies a lot of the ales I have been trying recently. As I worked my was through, it was evident that this wasn’t a gassy drink. Although it did get a burp out of me.

I was rather overwhelmed with the first few glugs, but half-way through, I must have started to get used to it. This must be one of those ales that grows on you. For an ale, it is also surprisingly refreshing. Possibly down to it’s “Purest Highland Water”, or the low-ish alcohol volume, I was surprised at how easy it was to drink.

At the start of the bottle, I must admit, I had doubts. There was the hint on the label of Ruby Ale characteristics which put me off. The smell was a bit off-putting for me. And the bitterness of the first couple of gulps weren’t that promising. But after those hurdles, Three Sisters turned into a rewarding ale. Good flavour, high quality and drinkable all came through in the end. Quite an unexpected turnaround.

Recommended for fans of Scottish ales and for beer drinkers wanting an easy introduction to them. People less keen on strong-ish maltiness and bitterness might want to look elsewhere.

Rating: 4

Have you tried Three Sisters? What did you think?
How about the other Atlas Brewery beers?
Any recommendations of your own?
Comments in the comments section as usual.

The abundant Scottish-ness of the ale is made perfectly clear by the front label.

The simple, yet effective design features two Scottish Saltaire’s. Each, either side of an illustration of the Jock in question. Quite possibly, the most Scottish looking man you have ever seen, in full Highland military regalia and mountains in the background. Printed directly below the name and illustration is something else that catches the eye… “ABV 6.7%”. That makes this a strong ale. And my past experience with strong Scottish ales was good.

Opting for the one long label wrapped around the bottle, the left-hand-side gives us the story. That Jocks were the fighting men of Scotland and that they drunk strong ales. Presumably, like this one. Furthermore, that this is a “classic Scottish Strong Ale” and that it’s “dark and strongly flavoured” nature needs to be at room temperature. Unusual as most ales like to be cooled. I usually take them from the fridge. But not this one. As per the request of the label, I tested it at room temperature.

In case you like to pick your drinks according to your meal, this one says that it goes well with cheese and meat dishes. I don’t have either to hand, so we’ll have to take the brewery advice on that one.

Tucked away on the opposite side of the label are the units. 3 in the case of this bottle. Unusual not to see that in the usual ‘units’ logo. The ingredients, if you give a hoot, are water, malted barley, hops and yeast. It’s not often you see yeast listed as an ingredient. Obviously it’s got to be in there, but most ales and beers seem to leave that out of their lists.

The bottle is 500 millilitres and much darker than many others. There are also hops embossed around the shoulder of the bottle. I don’t know why they bothered since the dark shade of glass makes them almost invisible. The bottle top is plain red too. Most brewers would have done something with the bottle top, but not Broughton yet. Now let’s see how Old Jock from the Borders does outside the bottle…

Poured into a glass, Old Jock has a thick, frothy head. But that settled down within moments to a thinner and inconsistent covering. The colour was a bit of a surprise. Not opaque and some reddish hues. I hope this won’t be another disappointing Ruby Beer.

On the nose, this has a rich, malted barley smell. No fruit, flower or caramel nonsense here. No bubbles either which won’t make it too gassy. And the no nonsense approach is carried over to the taste. This is a straightforward, quality strong ale. And it tastes of malted barley. The taste and aftertaste are somewhat bitter and sour, but honestly, it is not something to worry about.

As I worked my way through the contents, I began to figure out what Old Jock was all about. Unlike the many other ales that I’ve been reviewing recently, it doesn’t try to deliver a multi-coloured spectrum of tastes and flavours. Instead, it aims to provide something simple, and something exceptionally well. And something that I appreciate, something that is very strong.

One point of contention is where, on the label, they say that Old Jock is to be “savoured like a fine wine”. That is completely true of those ales that do deliver a cavalcade of taste complexity. For a strong ale like Old Jock that doesn’t, that statement seems unnecessary. It is hard to imagine the old Jock’s of legend, coming home after a hard day spent fighting neighbouring clans and savouring their strong ale like a fine wine. The strong ale of yesteryear was the super-strength lager of today.

As I worked towards the end of the bottle, there was no doubt that Old Jock was strong. My alcohol addled brain also found it quite drinkable. At least for a bottle’s worth. I’d be reluctant to have another bottle or pint right after this one because the smell and flavour are that strong. But if you want a single, quality bottle of Scottish strong ale, you will probably enjoy Broughton Old Jock Ale.

Rating: 4.25

Have you tried Old Jock? What did you think?
Have you tried any other Broughton beers? What were they like?
Any other comments in the usual place please…

Like this:

ON to the third beer from The Orkney Brewry and this one is called Red MacGregor.

Again, I hugely recommend that you read my first review of Orkney Brewery beer because this one sticks to much the same formula for the label. And if beers from Quoyloo, Stromness in the Orkney Islands particularly interest you, don’t forget my recent review of Orkney Dark Island.

This bottle, like so many others, is 500 millilitres, so have a pint glass ready. At 4% volume, this bottle will also give you 2.0 of your government approved alcohol units. The front reveals that this is a Ruby Ale. To date, I’ve only had one ruby ale from Wychwood. It wasn’t quite to my taste, but it was still quite good. So I approach Red MacGregor with curiosity.

Also on the front label, below an illustration of waves lashing a cliff face is the every helpful ‘authenticity stamp’. Why is it I only see these on Scottish drinks? On that ‘stamp’ is a concise description of the drink: “An intensely hoppy, ruby red beer with a delicious, delicate aroma and a rich, rewarding palate.”

The rear label too, as all Orkney Brewery beers do, expands on this. This is useful, as it gives something to judge it by. Words it uses to describe the smell include “floral”, “fruity”, “toffee” and “caramel”. That’s a box of Quality Street, isn’t it? For the taste, words it uses include “malt” (three times in fact) and “spicy hop”. People who know their ruby ale, write in to say if that sounds right to you.

Also on the rear label is mention of an accolade of note. This was apparently the first Scottish beer to win the BIIA World Cask Beer Gold Medal. As with Orkney’s other beers, this is award winning. And even better, we know what award it’s won. Very good, Orkney.

Poured into a glass, we get a good creamy, frothy head. Not over the top however. This is a well behaved head. In colour, you can just about call it ‘red’ or ‘ruby’. But only just. It’s not as red as perhaps I had been expecting.

When it comes to smell, it is as complicated as I like my ales to be. I can’t dispute all the things that they claim to be in there. But to my untrained nose, what I can smell is malt, hops, and a hint of flowers and fruit.

Now the most important parts; taste and drinkability. It’s bitter and malty. But a different bitterness and maltiness to otherbitter and malty beers that I’ve reviewed recently. It’s not gassy in case that’s something that bothers you. What this brings is a stronger, more lingering aftertaste. And a tiny hint of fruits.

This isn’t bad at all. The quality of the ingredients and the case that went into it are all in evidence. Probably because I’m not a big fan of ruby ale and the bitterness that goes with it, I couldn’t call it outstanding. If however, you love your ruby, I can heartily recommend it. For me though, I’ll have to learn to love ruby ale with a few more examples.

Rating: 3.7

Have you tried Orkney Red MacGregor? What did you think?
Can you recommend any other Ruby Ales?
What sort of people drink Ruby Ale? Are you one? If so, what sort of person are you?
Comments in the usual place please…

AFTER my recentPolishexcursion, I came over all thirsty for something with complexity. It was time to head back to a beer from the Britain. Much to my delight, this coincided with my local Tesco stocking a new range of Scottish beers. One that caught my eye was Harviestoun Bitter & Twisted. Purporting to be a “Blond Beer”, this immediately reminded me of the outstandingly delicious Leffe Blond(e) Beer. How would Harviestoun’s and Leffe’s blond(e) beers compare? And does it maintain the fine reputation established by Scotland’s otherfine beers?

For a start, Bitter & Twisted looks different.

The shape of the bottle is different to those of the continent. The front label too, gives this beer a look and feel so local, that it amazes you a shipment made its way from the county fair all the way down to London town. That is a quality I like.

The mouse mascot. The hops. The description of ‘Craft Brewed in Alva, Scotland’ all add to it. The front label also gives us a three bullet point description of the contents. Always excellent as it gives me something to judge it by. “Spicy”, “Aromatic” and “Zesty” are what I’ll be on the look out for here.

In the way that all good British beers do, we get a good story on the rear label. This one is about the mouse that frequented the brewery and later achieved fame as the mascot (see front label). We are also treated to a technical description of the ingredients that goes above my head. It includes words and phrases like “hop profile”, “Hallertau Hersbrücker”, “Challenger”, “late hopping” and “Styrian Goldings”. If you know what any of this means, leave a comment in the usual place.

Also on the information packed rear-label is the mention of awards having been won at “home and abroad”. But Harvieston have, like so many others, failed to say what those awards were, and when they were received. Also mentioned is that less carbon dioxide was used in the bottling process, so this should make it less gassy. Also of note, below the “Bitter & Twisted” banner is “Like the Twist of a Lemon”. Will the “Zest” come from a lemon flavour? The ingredients of barley, oats and wheat also tell us this isn’t going to be the watery experience of lager. Let’s see what this 500 millilitre (nearly 1 pint worth) of 4.2% beer is really like…

Poured into a glass, there was less head than with Leffe. The smell was also very different. It’s aromatic in the complex way that I wanted. But not malty like Leffe’s interpretation of blond beer. The is clearly going to be a very different drink to Leffe. You can just about make out the various crops that went into the making of this drink, plus the smell of something zesty added to it. Fortunately, not in an overpowering Cif Lemon way.

Now the most important part: taste and drinkability. And I’m happy to report that Bitter & Twisted has both. The flavour is as complex as you’d expect from a drink with so many qualities and ingredients.

If I had to pigeon hole it, I’d say it was a bitter. But Bitter & Twisted is more than that. In the same way that Sir Ranulph Fiennes is someone who enjoys a spot of rambling, Bitter & Twisted takes the concept of a bitter to an extreme. Although the main taste is ever so slightly bitter, it’s swiftly followed by the taste of countless arable crops and yes, a hint of something that may be considered “zesty”. Possibly helped by it’s relatively low alcohol volume, Bitter & Twisted is very easy to drink. I’d very much like to try a bottle with a seafood meal.

If you find this available, it is well worth your time. In the sub £1.40 price bracket, it is also good value.

Rating: 4.25

If Tesco haven’t sold out, I’ll be trying the other Scottish beers, ales and lagers soon, so watch this space.

Have you tried Bitter & Twisted? What did you think? Can you recommend any other Harviestoun beers?